The Right Scoop- Independent Patriot
I agree! Just Great Period!
- Anonymous
Yes.
- zytekfan
I can hear Obama crying foul over it already
- http://twitter.com/nickmarschel straw man
That was basically the purpose of the Senate before the progressives gave us the direct election of Senators with the 17th amendment.
- Graizk
The senate can still veto anything it wants. It didn’t give it up
- RDG
That’s not what the 17th amendment did. It removed one layer of check and balance at the state level. One big city with powerful machine politics in a state can now elect a senator. This deprives all the other people of the voice they had before the 17th amendment when the legislators picked the senator. The 17th gave machine politics the edge and we all know how that worked in many cases.
- http://www.recall.avoiceofthepeople.com we__the__people
See Federalist Papers #46: The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared“The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be EASILY DEFEATED by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.”This is EXACTLY how the Founders intended the States to act!
- Kim Makk
Imho – After listening to this my first thought is.. it should be reposted on every website and all other ways we have available. Oh my – talk about a way to repeal so many things. From Obamacare to .. what.. the IRS? I’ve not researched this to verify the accuracy of the statement from Levin – but if anyone does and finds this is truly a venue that can be used.. perhaps .. just perhaps.. we can see the changes many of us are wanting done.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Kawasaki/1798183858 Dave Kawasaki
Sounds excellent. Congress will never pass it.
- Kim Makk
This new kid on the block is likely way behind many of you in political knowledge. For most of my life I didn’t follow politics. Yet with another venue here I will learn more and continue to hope for the USA to turn itself around. Glen Beck convinced me to start storing food a few years ago & BO did one good ‘change’ – he woke many of us up. Perhaps someday enough politions will grow weary of ‘rigged’ bill’s being passed and turn to us with this ammendment. Levin’s words gives me hope anyways.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=6229750 Anonymous
Repeal the 17th Amendment, get a very similar result.
- Stephen
The 10th ammendment already establishes sovereignty of states from opressive legislation. If the Fedocrats ignore the Constitution now, what good will another ammendment do? Not to mention the Congresscritters would have to pass the ammendment by 2/3 vote in both chambers. Good luck with that. This ammendment would go down the tubes with the Balanced Budget Ammendment and Term Limits. Congress will NEVER vote to limit their own power. That’s a given.
- Paulchri
I tend to agree.
- http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PMLT5XN3DODARW4HIWZCBBS5YA Mickey
And of course we know the Tenth Amendment doesn’t overrule the Supremacy Clause of Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution.Which holds the Federal Constitution, not the state constitution the supreme law of the land.The Fourteenth Amendment upholds and and expends on Federal preemption.
The Supreme Court has upheld preemption in 2000 with the ruling regarding Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council.
“Even without an express preemption provision, state law must yield to a congressional Act if Congress intends to occupy the field, California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U. S. 93, 100, or to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute, Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 66-67. This Court will find preemption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal law and where the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress’s full purposes and objectives. What is a sufficient obstacle is determined by examining the federal statute and identifying its purpose and intended effects. Here, the state Act is such an obstacle, for it undermines the intended purpose and natural effect of at least three federal Act provisions.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=530&page=363
During the Nullification Sen Daniel Webster spoke on Jan 27 1830 about how the Constitution is for and of the people and not a compact of the various states.
“It is, Sir, the people’s Constitution, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that the Constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. The States are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given the power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, thorugh one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary.”
He goes on to uphold and praise Federal supremacy and preemption.
“But, Sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of Constitutional law. There are in the Constitution grants of powers to Congress, and restrictions on these powers. There are, also, prohibitions on the States. Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordaned, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that ‘the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.’
This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the Constitution, or any law of the United States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall decide this question of intereference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring, “That the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” These two provisions cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! With these it is a government; without them it is a confederation. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, Congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the Supreme Court. It then, Sir, became a government. It then had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are past. Having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that, since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide; subject always, like other popular governments, to its responsibility to the people…”
Senator Webster lays out the case for Federal control and the case against any form of nullification or interposition in this speech.Let’s give thanks to the Goddess of Reason that this nation in it’s early years had such strong believers in Federalism like Sen Webster and kept this country from a civil war for as long as they could.
As for way the far right elements of the Republican Party are eager to rip apart the Constitution and lead us into a new Nullification Crisis,that’s beyond me.Why are we at this late stage when we have a broken economy and two wars with no end in sight trying to revive a dead and dangerous idea like nullification is worrying.
- KeninMontana
Actually, the “Supremacy clause” in and of itself sets up a constitutional crisis, unless I missed something big and the Tenth Amendment is no longer a part of the Constitution.
- DisturbingBehavior
I briefly read through the Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council and I can understand the reason why the Mass. law was overturned. However, the main point that I would have focused on with overturning the state law would have been limited to the power designated by Article 1 Section 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
The state did not have the constitutional authority to restrict trade done by any business with a foreign nation. It is up to the Federal government to deal with foreign affairs. For comparison, I would wonder if there were any similar laws that were tried but failed early in U.S. history because of anti-British sentiments or during other periods in history. - KeninMontana
Yes that would be what is known as the “commerce clause” a different animal than the so-called “supremacy clause”. It is probably the most abused clause in the document, it is a fairly simple and straight forward passage if taken in its actual context,its original intent towards commerce between the states was to prevent the states from engaging in tariff “wars” with each other. However the States have and do exercise a great deal of authority over any businesses that operate within their borders, in reality their authority exceeds that of the Feds when dealing with businesses operating within their boundaries.
- Don17k
I think you missed something small… the last 4 words of the 10th. “Or to the people.”
The people can act through their Federal representatives to enact a nationwide policy, or through their state representatives to enact one limited to, and/or individual to, their own state.
- KeninMontana
Actually,no I did not. In fact you and I have been down this road on the the 10th before. Nice to see you finally admit to whom the constitution grants the majority of power to.
- Stephen
I talked about this with my son last night (while watching football of course). He passed the Bar two years ago, and his degree had an emphasis in Constitutional Law.
The apparent contradiction between the 10th Ammendment and the Supremacy Clause is only on the surface. When the US Congress passes legislation that is either 1) unconstitutional in it’s content or 2) Is outside Congress’s Constitutional authority – said law is de facto null and void, and so the Supremacy Clause can’t apply to a law that is not a law.
- Stephen
Far right? Are you aware leading forces in the nullification movement are the marijuana lobby and alien sanctuary municipalities? The issue at hand is Congressional abuse of it’s constitutional limitations.
10th Ammendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
James Madison: [Federalist #45] “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
The Supremecy Clause does not apply when Congress either enacts legislation not constitutionally under its authority and/or enacts laws which are inherently unconstitutional. Such laws are de facto null and void, (i.e. federally mandated individual health insurance) and states have the authority to nullify them.
- Don17k
Few, yes. Defined, yes. But not so rigidly defined that there was no room to expand the interpretation of that definition. Some of the terms, such as “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” are rather vague as to what might be meant by “general welfare,” and “regulate commerce between the states” can include any transaction that might affect commerce in other states, even when the regulated commerce itself doesn’t transcend state lines.
Thus, we must look to the limitations on Congressional power (Art I, Sec 9) which were even fewer, and much more rigidly defined, with it spelled out that there were circumstances under which some of those limitations to Congressional power would need to be lifted.
- Stephen
Good thread and informative dialogue! I picked up some new insights. But what is in fact happening now is interesting as well. For example; The Bush era REAL ID Act has been “nullified” by 25 states based on issues of privacy, funding and other points. Though still on the books, the law is in practice virtually null and void in the maze of state challenges – which would take SCOTUS years to sort out. Ditto with the Firearms Freedom Act originally in Montana and spreading in one form or another to twenty some states.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/real-id/
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/
Ultimately, of course, 10th ammendment challenges would need to be decided by SCOTUS based on ammendments principles and precedents cited in this thread. Unfortunately, SCOTUS seems to trend further from Constitutional interpretation and more toward legislating from the bench. The very fact that justices are apointed largely according to their opinions on social issues and idealogy – based on which party controls the Whitehouse and Congress – is troubling.
- http://twitter.com/conniedutoit Connie du Toit
Vague only in the sense that people don’t understand the importance of commas.
“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly[sic] within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1791
- Don17k
Thanks, Mickey.
Interesting, though. I made the argument some weeks ago, that the 10th amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” and asked, don’t the people also speak through their representatives in the Federal government as well, and if they do, then the 10th amendment can’t really be used to declare an act of the Federal government unconstitutional simply because it goes beyond the enumerated powers in Sec 8.
My argument was called “laughable” and “specious.” No satisfactory explanation about exactly what was wrong with it, though.
- KeninMontana
You have also in the past made the repeated argument that the Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to do essentially anything it wants to do, as to this latest posit of yours I would ask in return; when was the last time a congress accepted the “will of the people” and reversed course in any of their efforts to expand Federal Power?
- http://twitter.com/nsivakumar Nagarajan Sivakumar
Don17K, If we go by your reasoning, there is no need for the Tenth Amendment. In fact, your logic BEGS the question. Why is it even there in the Bill of Rights ?The fundamental rationale behind the US Constitution was to disperse power as much as possible from a coercive central Government – even though this central Government has representatives that are elected by the people, the founding fathers WERE STILL TROUBLED by the very possibility that this central government could very easily be no different from the brutal British Government from which this country became free.We are not “simply” declaring an act of the Federal Government as unconstitutional – that is a straw man argument. Obamacare is an abomination and if the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would call the coercion of citizens by the Federal Government to buy a product/service against their own free will as nothing short of tyrannical.If there ever was a need to understand why the Tenth Amendment was there in the first place, then some of the most power hungry Presidents FDR, LBJ and now BHO have shown why.Your arguments against the Tenth Amendment are INDEED specious.
- Paulchri
You would thank the Federalists who did not want the Bill of Rights? These people wanted to be rulers of people without inalienable rights. Those rights are all we have that can preserve any semblance of freedom against a tyrannical gvnmt. Without them, we would have been disarmed and in serfdom by now. The only reason we lasted this long is because our constitution and bill of rights slowed them down. They have been able to corrupt all three branches of gvnmt, therefor negating any real limitations on federal involvement in our lives. Federalists were the original Democrats.
As a Christian, I don’t consider myself religious. As a constitutional originalist, I don’t consider myself far right. “Far right” is a term that people use on other people to negate the validity of their positions. Any use of these kinds of terms tends to reveal the ignorance of the person using them as it pertains to their relativity, and motive based usage. If you think that the direction is which we are going as a country is good, then you are most likely going to help it along in its inevitable collapse. If you think that gvnmt control is good, but you think they just go a bit too far, then you are an advocate of a slower collapse. The “far right” that you refer to believes that nullification, or even succession, is a valid option based on the uncorrupted definitions and intent written into the supreme law of our country. If you have a criminal federal gvnmt who is not held to its legitimate authority only and is deliberately destroying the very sovereignty of the country, then succession becomes more reasonable the closer you get to a collapse of our society.
Otherwise you would be advocating for all of the states to go down with and because of said corrupt and criminal gvnmt. There comes a point that all men have to decide whether or not they will risk anything at all for their freedom. This isn’t limited to a federal army fighting in foreign wars. It eventually becomes the duty, according to the second amendment, of “the people” to act against the criminal gvnmt.
- http://twitter.com/nsivakumar Nagarajan Sivakumar
PaulChri,
Thanks for reminding why the Second Amendment was put in place… no it is not for hunters as disingenuous liberals would like to claim and or believe…A disarmed people with zero means of fighting back against a tyrannical authority are ultimately a bunch of sheeple who have no choice but to bow to the dictates of an abusive and coercive government.
The US Constitution is easily the most revolutionary among all republics and there are so many people out there who would go to any lengths to deny that. That’s a real shame.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CACVTC54ZOAJEA32UXBGB4U7OI Bradley
Interesting take, but I think you misread Webster. He wasn’t arguing for unlimited federal power, but for non-interference by states in areas where A-federal power was indeed authorized and B-where states were debarred from acting. That’s a big difference from what you’re arguing here.
As an aside, can you tell us whether the production, sale and consumption of alcohol was interstate commerce?
- Don17k
I think you misread both Mickey and Webster. Nobody has said Webster was arguing for unlimited Federal Power, certainly not Webster himself. Note that he says, “”But, Sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of Constitutional law. There are in the Constitution grants of powers to Congress, and restrictions on these powers. ” He was quite clear in his belief in the Supremacy clause, and in his belief that in the matter of a dispute between acts of the Federal government authorized by the US Constitution and conflicting acts of the state, the Federal must always prevail, and that the interpretation of when such Federal laws were within the US Constitution must be the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, which is designated the Supreme Court, for a reason.
- http://community.livejournal.com/black_avenger_1/profile Virus-X
Even with the new crop of Republicans that might actually be Conservatives, I’d be hard pressed to believe Congress would voluntarily accept real checks and balances (seeing as the Executive and “Supreme” Court don’t count, anymore). Originally, the Senate WAS the direct representative of the states, until a liberal president and Congress did away with that (probably to get precisely the chaos we have, today). What we have, now, is a federal tyranny. Dictators like the Dalai Obama, Pelosi and Reid believe the states should be helpless, with their word being law, literally. Ignorant people believe this is correct for America (as well as stupid people). However, regardless of the supremacy of the Constitution, the Constitution was NEVER MEANT TO BE A STRAIGHT JACKET or BLANK CHECK FOR DICTATORSHIP. The states are fully capable of running themselves, and far more efficiently than some nobody Dalai Obama. All the federal government is meant to do is regulate interstate commerce by standardization, regulate trade with foreigners and defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They’re not meant to regulate person-to-person intrastate transactions, not meant to regulate what we watch on TV, what kind of TV we can purchase to watch, how much water is in our toilet, what we can say, and revoke our rights, as they see fit. Giving the states their voices back could quite possibly go a long way to reversing the massive loss of liberty Congress is responsible for.
- Don17k
You call them (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) dictators. Have you ever lived under a real one? I’ll bet you haven’t, or if you did, it was so long ago you’ve forgotten. Under a real dictator, this forum would have been shut down long ago, Fox would be off the air, and its principals would be in a gulag somewhere, a place like Gitmo.
Originally, the Senate was supposed to be the States’ direct representation, true. Ever think maybe that was because Madison, Hamilton, Adams and the Federalists knew that without the states’ ratification, nothing would happen and it would all be just a wasted summer? The States were being asked to relinquish much of their sovereignty, and it was obvious they were going to require some substantial measure of control over the resulting entity in return…
Weren’t the delegates to the convention mostly state politicians, like Elbridge Gerry, who “gerrymandering” was named for? Their question to take to the rest of the legislators back home would be, what’s in it for them?
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser
Dictators is a stretch, but would you except authoritarians?
- Don17k
Authoritarians?
But what kind of government is not authoritarian? If the government has no authority, and asserts no authority, how can it govern anything at all?
If we need no authority to be asserted over us, why have any government?
- Idahoser
the tenth has no teeth without the 17th. States are bureaus of the federal gov’t until we repeal it.
- Fasd
Even if this amendment were passed, the problem is that the Feds can more easily pass legislation than 2/3rds of the states can agree to overturn it.
I agree that the problem is that we have moved to a more direct democracy where a few small dense population centers can pull the levers of government.
- Smoke
Great idea, also make members of Congress employees of the state they respresent, i.e. the state legislature would set pay and travel expense for their members of congress.
- Bridry
Why require 2/3 of the states. The 17th amendment only required 1/2 the states senators to stop a law. 1/2 the states should be enough or 3/10 at most
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=197402182 Chuck Norton
The number of states should not be 2/3 rds. Heck you can call a constitutional convention with 2/3. Make it 60% of the states (this is only legislation after all passed by simple majorities in Congress) and lets start repealing unfunded mandates and a lot of this crap.
- Anonymous
What about a simpler approach, just repeal the 17th Amendment and give the States their Senate back.
- Anonymous
What about a simpler approach, just repeal the 17th Amendment and give the States their Senate back.
- Don17k
“Their” Senate? It is not “their” Senate. It’s ours!
- Anonymous
The Senate was set up so the States had the Senate, elected Senators, Senators were the States representatives, and the People had the House — And the control of money and taxes I might add.
The 17th Amendment changed that. Ergo, the reposible to no one Senate, and the out of control federal government and the unfunded federal mandates flowed like rain. So it was the State’s Senate and the People’s House.
The States created the Federal Government. History is your friend.
- Don17k
The 17th amendment changed that… But it wasn’t Congress’s idea at first. It was done state by state, first. That was because the legislatures were often deadlocked over whom to choose as their Senator, so the Senate session began with some states not being fully and equally represented. It also led to the selection of some Senators, like Boies Penrose of PA who in 1896 defined the relationship between his politics and big business as: “”I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money…and out of your profits, you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money.” Or of James Cameron, also of (R) PA who said, “An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.”
As you say, history is my friend.The 17th Amendment was passed, as all of them are, at the request of two-thirds of both houses, and of three-fourths of those same state legislatures of the day who were giving up their power to select Senators… right? Not only that, it’s one of only a handful of amendments ratified in less than a year.
Also, your addition that the House had control of the money and taxes… They don’t have control over those kinds, they only have the power to originate them. That makes control an illusion, so long as any legislation the House passes must be passed identically in the Senate, because the House must initiate some form of expenditure some time, and then the battle begins. The Senate can amend it as they wish. Unless their amendments are agreed to, nothing happens. But the House members must ALL go back and face their constituents in less than 2 years, while only a third of the Senate was under that level of pressure, and they needed only to go back and answer to their legislature, who may well sympathize.
- Anonymous
The Senate was set up so the States had the Senate, elected Senators, Senators were the States representatives, and the People had the House — And the control of money and taxes I might add.
The 17th Amendment changed that. Ergo, the reposible to no one Senate, and the out of control federal government and the unfunded federal mandates flowed like rain. So it was the State’s Senate and the People’s House.
The States created the Federal Government. History is your friend.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser
No, you’re just supposed to think it’s ours. That’s the great myth of American governance.
- Kim Makk
I noticed your comment earlier on authoritarians.. now the mention of.. great myth of American governance. Are you inferring… bilderberg ?
- Anonymous
I disagree with Mark on this one. We’ve already seen how Congress passes bills knowing that a court may invalidate all or parts of it as unconstitutional. Some reps vote YES on, and some presidents have signed, bills HOPING all or part of it will be rejected by the courts. That takes years and the courts can’t be trusted to do the right thing, but it allows these politicians to rationalize their votes.
If this type of amendment were in place, and politicians being politicians, it would become virtually impossible to undo any federal law. Anyone opposed to repeal could rightly say “let the states decide through the amendment process”. So not only would it be a disincentive to the repeal of the healthcare bill, for example, it would give every rep who votes against repeal a legitimate excuse for voting NO.
Mark is usually much more realistic about human nature than he shows here. He must have been in a really good mood last night.
- Anonymous
I disagree with Mark on this one. We’ve already seen how Congress passes bills knowing that a court may invalidate all or parts of it as unconstitutional. Some reps vote YES on, and some presidents have signed, bills HOPING all or part of it will be rejected by the courts. That takes years and the courts can’t be trusted to do the right thing, but it allows these politicians to rationalize their votes.
If this type of amendment were in place, and politicians being politicians, it would become virtually impossible to undo any federal law. Anyone opposed to repeal could rightly say “let the states decide through the amendment process”. So not only would it be a disincentive to the repeal of the healthcare bill, for example, it would give every rep who votes against repeal a legitimate excuse for voting NO.
Mark is usually much more realistic about human nature than he shows here. He must have been in a really good mood last night.
- Pauline
Levin is the best, he just tells it like it is. States must take back their power from a Stalinist Washington.
- American Woman
I’m call my reps today!
- American Woman
I’m call my reps today!
- Hspin
Congress understands the anger of the American People. We will show them once again “who works for whom” in 2012. Those who resist the will of the people will be swept away…..
- Idahoser
the author of this attempt has come to understand the need for states to have the authority to oppose runaway federal gov’t, but he is not going to improve on the Constitution as it was before the 17th Amendment.
- Conniejra
I agree completely, but I know without question it will never happen. I have become very wary of my government, including the Republicans. They talk a good game, but until I actually see things like this get put into place, I won’t believe any of it.
- Don17k
This is the kind of thing that may sound great, but as they say…. the devil is in the details.
Consider:
“The States” to have veto power? Wielded by whom? The governor? Or the majority of the Legislature?
Two thirds, means at least 34 states. 60% means at least 30. Either way, they’re not going to all decide at once, since they are not a single legislative or executive body. Would they have a time limit in which to veto, or would it just be open-ended? (It took 200+ years to ratify the 27th!) Would a “pocket veto” be possible?
Then there’s the matter of the states exerting control over Federal funds, in addition to state funds, and including funds that don’t come from the states, such as import tariffs, taxes paid by overseas citizens, amounts paid by foreign nations under treaties…
Finally, there’s the issue of lobbyists, including foreign lobbyists by foreign corporations who have factories in various states, prevailing upon states to veto Federal legislation they object to because it may favor their domestic competition.
Have any of you thought beyond the basic concept here?
- Kim Makk
Actually – yes I have thought beyond the basic concept here. Lil research combined with reading everyones posts since I posted last night leads me to reverse my opinion – eat crow so to speak. While at first listen it did sound good .. you are right.. devil is in the details. And something like this would give polititions another way to vote with the hope of not getting whatever they are voting on – yet being able to say ‘i was on your side all along’.
That said – I’ll continue the phone call’s & emails to the politicians to let my voice be heard. Perhaps another day will eat crow here again as I don’t mind being wrong when I learn why I’m wrong. Glad Levin’s words were posted – as this turned into a gentle learning experience for me. Tis no easy shortcuts for the various changes in government folks are seeking.
- Don17k
This is the kind of thing that may sound great, but as they say…. the devil is in the details.
Consider:
“The States” to have veto power? Wielded by whom? The governor? Or the majority of the Legislature?
Two thirds, means at least 34 states. 60% means at least 30. Either way, they’re not going to all decide at once, since they are not a single legislative or executive body. Would they have a time limit in which to veto, or would it just be open-ended? (It took 200+ years to ratify the 27th!) Would a “pocket veto” be possible?
Then there’s the matter of the states exerting control over Federal funds, in addition to state funds, and including funds that don’t come from the states, such as import tariffs, taxes paid by overseas citizens, amounts paid by foreign nations under treaties…
Finally, there’s the issue of lobbyists, including foreign lobbyists by foreign corporations who have factories in various states, prevailing upon states to veto Federal legislation they object to because it may favor their domestic competition.
Have any of you thought beyond the basic concept here?
- Oldschool
There are a whole lot of moving parts that would need to be dealt with beyond just granting a veto to the states. What about the moral hazard instituted by a combination of the broad interpretation of the taxing and spending power coupled with the federal income tax? Progressive majorities in state legislatures want federal programs and spending for their states and they want bail out money to allow them to spend more than their state constitutions would otherwise allow (balanced budget requirements). State legislatures are not paragons of courage, either. I realize we must also assume a sustained tea party type orientation on the part of the rank and file voter to make legislatures do the right thing. Like I said, lots of moving parts, but not saying it isn’t worth thinking about.
- Farideh
Mark Levin is a patriot, an American treasure.
- http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/N6KW3FJR2ERX2QHDLTECY2MRE4 mark
as a long shot option…
given the power vested with the HHS secretary to issue ‘waivers’ of participation for various unions and companies that would suffer severely from forced enrollment in obamacare…
couldn’t a gop selected HHS secretary simply issue a ‘national waiver’ of participation?
the dems were crafty in getting the control away from congress and bestowing tremendous power with the HHS secretary. How badly could a gop replacement for sebilius screw up obamacare?
- crypticguise
I heard Mark’s comments on his show when he first made them. There is no doubt in my mind that the Federal Government has for too long been overstepping its authority under our Constitution.
This would be an excellent way to reverse ANY legislation that is anti-thetical to individual or states’ rights.
Levin has come across a proposed amendment that basically says that two thirds of the states in agreement would be able to veto legislation passed in the federal government. Thus it would provide another layer of checks and balances against laws like, say, ObamaCare.
Levin loves the idea and I must say it sounds good to me!
Enjoy!
.
- http://twitter.com/nickmarschel
- http://www.recall.avoiceofthepeople.com
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Kawasaki/1798183858
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=6229750
- http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PMLT5XN3DODARW4HIWZCBBS5YA
- http://twitter.com/conniedutoit
- http://twitter.com/nsivakumar
- http://twitter.com/nsivakumar
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CACVTC54ZOAJEA32UXBGB4U7OI
- http://community.livejournal.com/black_avenger_1/profile
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=197402182
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455
- http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/N6KW3FJR2ERX2QHDLTECY2MRE4
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.